This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Bias would be putting it incredibly mildly. Until now, this entire article has been a piece of advertising for the BNF. Sadly, all that had been 'improved' up till now was the quality of the spin language (most impressive it was, too!). I have overhauled the entire article, re-organising it to match a more standard Wikipedia format, removing large chunks of text that were nothing but spin, and carefully editing the language to approach a more objective tone.
I also added the 'Criticism' section, which was entirely absent previously, and which certainly seems noteworthy.
Let's hope the BNF don't get too upset at losing the free advertising they've had from Wikipedia over the past few years! Will be watching this one...
The BNF clearly went to a bit of effort to add a long piece on all of the wonderful things they do. However, I took issue with the following:
1) Repetitive. It kept hammering home the same lines over and over, which made it sound suspiciously like advertising.
2) Biased tone. It was written as though it is completely plain and obvious to all right-thinking persons that the BNF are lovely and benevolent and everything they do is perfectly wonderful and they are impugnable champions of pure science and reason. In short, it read like an advertising piece. It was not written in an appropriate fashion for an encyclopedia article.
3) References. There were none. Not a one. And it had even done away with the references that were in places in the previous version.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Nutrition Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The current version of the BNF article has broken links, incomplete references and is not particularly informative. Rather than make separate comments or individual edits, it is perhaps simpler to do a full redraft, as follows:
The BNF aims to give the general public, educators and organisations access to reliable information on nutrition. Its website provides details on healthy, sustainable diets, on nutrition at different life stages, on diet in relation to health issues and on putting advice on diet and nutrition into practice.[4] Training is provided through online courses and webinars, with past webinars available on the website, together with videos of previous annual conferences. The organisation runs an annual “Healthy Eating Week” each June.[5]
The BNF manages the educational programme Food – a fact of life (FFL). This is designed to support teachers by providing accessible information on diet and health for children and young people progressively through the ages 3 years to 16+ years. It was originally launched in 1991 in a partnership with MAFF that continued until 1997. The BNF continued to develop the educational resources and from 2018 the FFL programme has been a partnership between the BNF and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.[6]
The official journal of the BNF, Nutrition Bulletin, is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly by Wiley.[7] Its coverage has included review articles and news items on nutrition, but since acquisition of an impact factor and MEDLINE coverage an increasing number of papers reporting original research have been included;[8] many articles are open-access.
Under its Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Board may comprise no more than 12 Trustees. Trustees are appointed by the Board and serve for a term of three years, with each Trustee able to serve for a maximum of nine years; membership of the Board is weighted towards the scientific academic community. As a charity largely funded by corporate donations from food industry organisations, the BNF maintains its independence through advisory and scientific committees, an Editorial Advisory Board, educational working groups and a register of interests for Board members and senior managers.[9]
A 1985 World in Action documentary interviewed Derek Shrimpton, a previous director general at BNF, who said: "In the period I was there the foundation was solely taken up with defence actions for the industry." He also said that BNF worked to frustrate government committees working on policies to reduce sugar, salt, and fat consumption.[10]
In 2005, 26 UK MPs signed an Early Day Motion in Parliament concerning the BNF advising the government on food nutrition while receiving funds from the food industry.[11]
Further concerns about the BNF's relationship with the food industry were raised in a 2010 British Medical Journal article, also published in a shortened form in The Independent, which criticized the way in which the BNF was treated as a source of impartial nutritional information by the media, usually without describing the industry ties, with funding members including, for example, Cadbury, Kellogg and McDonalds. It also criticized the UK government for paying the BNF to develop educational materials on nutrition, and quoted Tim Lobstein, a director at the International Association for the Study of Obesity-International Obesity Task Force (now the World Obesity Federation), saying that some BNF educational materials seem to support industry messages.[10][12]
This revision has been prepared without the knowledge of BNF, although I intend to advise them of it. To allow a little time for comments, I plan to replace the existing article text on 15 September. Douglian30 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply